Well.. I won't go into the economics, because I don't care to get drawn into a Big Discussion.
But the second bit of yours is only correct if you assume that Microsoft was going to issue debt in order to sit on the cash it raised. Which is an extremely unlikely situation. Currency is an already agreed upon medium of exchange. Microsoft could contract with each party they wish to exchange assets with that they will pay in bonds. Such agreements could cover everything from corporate acquisition all the way down to paying its utility bills. But that means a negotiation with every party. Instead, they issue debt, acquire cash, and then divest themselves of the cash for other assets. So that when the inflation they are expecting comes to pass (assuming they are expecting and it does actually come to pass), then Microsoft repays its debts with inflated dollars. Inflation helps borrows by exactly the amount it hurts lenders.
Poor corporate counsel? How many hours do you think the legal team billed for drafting this particular bit of contract? how much do you suppose they bank per hour? Poor is not a term I would throw around for a large corporation's legal counsel.
Hell, even if the lawyers knew it wouldn't be enforcable in court, why would they fight for any one else's rights? After all, they bill for drafting the agreement and then bill again for defending it in court.
That.. isn't really a good counterpoint. Forcing employees to adopt a behavior with cashflow issues because the company had cashflow issues is.. incredibly bad. Not to mention that if the R&D the company was working working on really was valuable and the company has cash problems... sell the research information to someone with money to make something of it. Let the researchers go work elsewhere. Everybody's big problem is solved, without need for a non-compete. If the information isn't valuable (can't sell it) then.. letting the researchers work elsewhere can't harm the company.
Telecom isn't a market. The bidding process to get the local monopoly agreement, yes. The actual production of service, no. It is rare to have real choices in your service providers. You might be able to choose between the phone company and the cable company. If you have more choices, it is probably someone reselling the phone or cable company's service. Oooh, the competition there is staggering. The government went to the companies and told them that their service was bad for the price. The response was too bad, so sad. They failed to meet consumer desires and then bit the hand that fed them their monopolies. Why should they be supported in any way? Ironically, delivering service at, or just above, cost is pretty much the result you'd expect from a market with competition. And yet, you decry those results because there supposedly isn't competition; although how adding a provider is less competition, I'm not entirely sure. Not that competition is some magical talisman of progress, anyway.
Re:Evolution versus artificial modification
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
There was nothing said about anyone's ability to enjoy (or not) an "unnatural" activity. Completely beside the point. Either they're cheating evolution, or they are inherently part of it. It may be possible that doing away with medical science would improve the health of those that survive and their descendants. I imagine an organized eugenics program would do lots to reduce and possibly eliminate many genetic conditions, while simultaneously improving mental and physical ability. But humankind hasn't evolved in that direction. May never go that way. We treat the sick because that is how we were wired by evolution. We develop new ways to treat the sick because that, too, is how we are wired by evolution.
I was far more pissed off with Verizon's device locks that prevented me from using my own mp3s as ringtones. If I wanted them, I'd have to buy the file and pay for the airtime off Vcast. I'd have doubts about going to Verizon even if they gave me an iPhone. Totally free.
Of course.. having been a Cingular customer, I'm certain I wouldn't go to ATT for an iPhone either. So.. android phones, I'm looking at you.
Why stop there? Not that it would stop there. Maybe the politicians and airlines are better elsewhere in the world. (Actually.. Japan was quite nice all around. Little miffed to have my fingerprints taken on entry, but that was about my only complaint) But the US ones suck. They'll put on security theatre and overstep all bounds of reason and logic to put on the show. After all, any sick person is a potential threat to the rest of humanity. Let us all pass laws forcing airlines to perform in-depth health checks at the airport. Part of the security process, you know? Think of the children. Fear the germs. And all that.
You're basing your opinion on the assumption that the law makes sense. It doesn't.
Note: You may be correct in that truth is an absolute defense from defamation. I don't know. I'm just saying, if I want logic then I'll talk to a philosopher. Madness is what I expect from the mouths of lawmakers.
If I had 100k to expend on a car, it would be because I have millions to drop on women and booze. Both of which I could pick up in my new 100k all-electric car. Before driving to my weekend home on the beach, where I'd then get drunk and laid. Not necessarily in that order.
I'm glad they're making the effort to build an all electric car. While I won't personally benefit from their offering directly, I'm also not being forced to buy their products. So, if they actually do help bring EVs to the mainstream, great. If not, then I haven't really lost anything.
Smokers don't just cause savings in health care. American smokers, due to their shorter lives, also receive fewer social security payments. I'd imagine there are similar government savings in other countries, I just don't know the names of programs.. or if those programs correct for such things (doubtful). They probably also create more estate tax revenues, and create them faster, by dying early before they can run through more of their savings. But they don't get credit for all the good deeds they do society by dying sooner.
Pfft.. Bring on your mutant PETA/Greenpeace/Harbor monsters! They'll be made out of mostly glass! And we, in the US at least, know lots about flinging stones at glass. I mean, sure, a lot of that practice is with glass houses. But it seems to be a favored pastime. Annnnd just imagine how much legislation you can cram down everyone's throats as a mutant enviroment/alist monster fearmongerer. After which, you can charge exorbitant amounts to permit the populace to engage in the therapeutic destruction of said monster. It is the perfect guide to a peaceful world without nuclear weapons!
Y'know.. its times like this when I feel I should pat myself on the back and ignore nagging questions such as "what could possibly go wrong?"
Don't see the big deal?! My god, man! Obviously, two bites at the tax revenue apple is far more tasty than merely one. No one cares that the money will be taxed downstream with a probability nearing 1. We want our revenue now. If you want to understand government, think of it as Veruca Salt. Only.. the bugger just won't jump into the incinerator chute.
Right. "Linux" is an operating system to compare against Windows. Except that linux is a kernel. All of the rest of system's goodness bolted on to a kernel makes an operating system and thus the bulk of the user experience. So for linux based OSes there is going to be a wide range of experiences. Lumping all of them into one assertion is... mind boggling.
If you are speaking from experience, I'm going to say that you don't spend much time on a Windows machine. Because claiming that it is now "as secure" is a ludicrous assertion. Windows has had security models that ranged from non-existent to half assed to annoying as fuck. The success of them has left something to be desired. Windows 7 isn't into production yet, so the greatness or lack thereof is good to know, but largely not a reason for me to care about the OS. When it reaches production and still doesn't suck, assuming this is an outcome that Microsoft can actually make happen, then I'll care. I don't give them credit for any skill, given that they have demonstrated many times that their cures are as bad as the illnesses they propose to treat.
Now, Windows has traditionally been easier to install than linux based OSes. Although that gap has narrowed considerably. Also, this gets somewhat subjective. And, of course, depends highly on the distro. Ubuntu, for instance, is slick. Installs faster than XP or Vista on my machine. Doesn't ask more complicated questions. How, exactly, does this make Windows easier to install?
"Behaves 'smother'", I'll also agree with. Windows is good at smothering users. Smoother, on the other hand, I'm unlikely to agree with. I mean, the first issue is a question of how to quantify "smooth".. Probably not that easy. I am not saying that the linux OSes of the world are perfect. There is flashy on both sides of the line. There are also issues. On both sides. Sometimes, they're really strange issues. Means there is room for improvement.
If it is an auction, and we assume that the bidders all bid voluntarily, then it doesn't particularly matter what the starting bid is. Unless, of course, no one is willing to pay even the set minimum.
700Mhz spectrum at cheap to nothing rates will only occur when 700Mhz spectrum is worth little to no dollars. Which.. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't.
I know that some of the advertising and fanboi's make this statement, but the reality is that they are a company looking to profit from as much as they can within their market.
Uh.. no kidding? Did you think they wanted to give you a quality user experience out of the goodness of their heart? Of course not. They know it is profitable to give users a certain experience. They do it. They make money. There isn't any logical disconnect between (company wants to make money) and (company wants to control the user experience).
If the NSA wanted to control cybersecurity, parading a 100 million USD expenditure over the past 6 months in front of people probably isn't going to do much of.. well.. anything. How many trillions of dollars of expenditures are in or have been in the news in the past 6 months? 100 million is pocket change. Looks damnably reasonable, in comparison.
That suit doesn't make any sense to me. Although I'll grant you that you're a lot better at crafting a rational translation than I was. If Google referred traffic is such a drain, there is a much cheaper technological solution. Any such referred traffic, regardless of the requested page, gets a page full of nothing but adverts. Yeah, the potential reader is going to be displeased. But they will a) not be consuming your bandwidth (or not much), just your advertiser's and b) won't get the information they were looking for, making the information served by your site that much more valuable. It also decreases the value of Google's indexing. And not one bit of it required going to the ridiculously priced lawyers, or starting a pissing match that isn't likely to turn out beneficial to the company. Sure, it'll hurt your brand. But only with a market segment that wasn't valuable, by your translation. Soooo.. there has to be some other reason. I just can't puzzle out what it might be and still have it make sense.
If the government were prohibited from interfering in the economy
... you wouldn't have a government. You wouldn't be able to institute any tax at all, anywhere. Interference and all that. Without tax revenues, the government would have to run on fees for services rendered. Which would make the government, effectively, a very large, publicly owned corporation. One which faces all the usual market issues, or one that is a protected monopoly. In the first case, you gain nothing by having government. In the second, you interfere in the economy.
Ideology is a nice guide for where you'd like to end up. It isn't a terribly good blueprint for getting there, though.
Do tell us where you'll be practicing your particular brand of medicine. I'll be sure to avoid that locale like the plague. Just to avoid you. Makes you kinda special doesn't it?
I thought of a way for developers and publishers to get in on the apparently lucrative used game market.
Operate used game stores. I'm sure there are regional chains all over the country. The publishers could band together to buy and operate these and get their cut.
Right.. if I look at all the benefits of something and almost none of the costs, that something is almost always going to look like a good thing. It isn't a useful method for decision making though.
I can guarantee you that there are people out there who were in poverty and are now wealthier than I'll ever be. There are people out there with good luck just as much as there are people out there with bad. Pointing out the bad without the good is useless. If we took my line, as I said, you'd be making an argument about why universal healthcare does more good than harm. I've only ever seen one that comes close. The others tend to neglect costs of universal health care and overlook benefits of private health care.
They probably can. I doubt they will though. Your car maker gives you options. They're pretty much always overpriced. But it does allow the dealer to extract more money from you for certain aesthetic preferences. What the dealer doesn't do, however, is permit me to select any cd player I want as an option. I don't get options on whether or not it comes with a disposable or washable air filter. That type of option costs a great deal (in inventory) compared to the benefits you receive (revenue).
In the first case, the range of available players is large enough to meet the diverse wants of car owners. But for the dealer, thats an expensive inventory to maintain. He can't reasonably charge more than the A/V shop down the street. And unless he's running his own A/V shop, won't have the volume to make it profitable. In the second case, the preferences probably aren't diverse enough to profit on. Most people probably dont' care about a re-usable air filter, and if they do, can get one after the factory one needs replacing.
ISP-level filter options are going to be similar. What I think should be filtered, what my neighbors next door think should be filtered, and what the neighbors down the street believe should be filtered are probably all different. If the choice is binary, the filtering is definitely wrong for me and probably wrong for the people who want things filtered too.
Basically.. your options on mass marketed products are available because the preferences are few, but wide-spread and valued, enough to make mass production of those options feasible. Content filtering probably doesn't fit that requirement.
if you're able, you could already live under the same conditions as Europeans. Assume the health care costs of someone else. If you aren't willing to assume the entirety of someone's costs, you could still help out. Or give to a charity that provides health care. Give to a clinic. or volunteer at one. Treat it exactly like witholding from your paycheck. I don't know that you don't already do this. If you don't, and are able, I'm not sure I should give your words any weight. If you aren't able, you should make an argument why sacrificing the freedom of others is more beneficial than harmful. I've seen about one good argument for universal health care.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.. I won't go into the economics, because I don't care to get drawn into a Big Discussion.
But the second bit of yours is only correct if you assume that Microsoft was going to issue debt in order to sit on the cash it raised. Which is an extremely unlikely situation. Currency is an already agreed upon medium of exchange. Microsoft could contract with each party they wish to exchange assets with that they will pay in bonds. Such agreements could cover everything from corporate acquisition all the way down to paying its utility bills. But that means a negotiation with every party. Instead, they issue debt, acquire cash, and then divest themselves of the cash for other assets. So that when the inflation they are expecting comes to pass (assuming they are expecting and it does actually come to pass), then Microsoft repays its debts with inflated dollars. Inflation helps borrows by exactly the amount it hurts lenders.
Poor corporate counsel? How many hours do you think the legal team billed for drafting this particular bit of contract? how much do you suppose they bank per hour? Poor is not a term I would throw around for a large corporation's legal counsel.
Hell, even if the lawyers knew it wouldn't be enforcable in court, why would they fight for any one else's rights? After all, they bill for drafting the agreement and then bill again for defending it in court.
That.. isn't really a good counterpoint. Forcing employees to adopt a behavior with cashflow issues because the company had cashflow issues is.. incredibly bad. Not to mention that if the R&D the company was working working on really was valuable and the company has cash problems ... sell the research information to someone with money to make something of it. Let the researchers go work elsewhere. Everybody's big problem is solved, without need for a non-compete. If the information isn't valuable (can't sell it) then .. letting the researchers work elsewhere can't harm the company.
Telecom isn't a market. The bidding process to get the local monopoly agreement, yes. The actual production of service, no. It is rare to have real choices in your service providers. You might be able to choose between the phone company and the cable company. If you have more choices, it is probably someone reselling the phone or cable company's service. Oooh, the competition there is staggering. The government went to the companies and told them that their service was bad for the price. The response was too bad, so sad. They failed to meet consumer desires and then bit the hand that fed them their monopolies. Why should they be supported in any way? Ironically, delivering service at, or just above, cost is pretty much the result you'd expect from a market with competition. And yet, you decry those results because there supposedly isn't competition; although how adding a provider is less competition, I'm not entirely sure. Not that competition is some magical talisman of progress, anyway.
There was nothing said about anyone's ability to enjoy (or not) an "unnatural" activity. Completely beside the point. Either they're cheating evolution, or they are inherently part of it. It may be possible that doing away with medical science would improve the health of those that survive and their descendants. I imagine an organized eugenics program would do lots to reduce and possibly eliminate many genetic conditions, while simultaneously improving mental and physical ability. But humankind hasn't evolved in that direction. May never go that way. We treat the sick because that is how we were wired by evolution. We develop new ways to treat the sick because that, too, is how we are wired by evolution.
I was far more pissed off with Verizon's device locks that prevented me from using my own mp3s as ringtones. If I wanted them, I'd have to buy the file and pay for the airtime off Vcast. I'd have doubts about going to Verizon even if they gave me an iPhone. Totally free.
Of course.. having been a Cingular customer, I'm certain I wouldn't go to ATT for an iPhone either. So.. android phones, I'm looking at you.
Why stop there? Not that it would stop there. Maybe the politicians and airlines are better elsewhere in the world. (Actually.. Japan was quite nice all around. Little miffed to have my fingerprints taken on entry, but that was about my only complaint) But the US ones suck. They'll put on security theatre and overstep all bounds of reason and logic to put on the show. After all, any sick person is a potential threat to the rest of humanity. Let us all pass laws forcing airlines to perform in-depth health checks at the airport. Part of the security process, you know? Think of the children. Fear the germs. And all that.
You're basing your opinion on the assumption that the law makes sense. It doesn't.
Note: You may be correct in that truth is an absolute defense from defamation. I don't know. I'm just saying, if I want logic then I'll talk to a philosopher. Madness is what I expect from the mouths of lawmakers.
If I had 100k to expend on a car, it would be because I have millions to drop on women and booze. Both of which I could pick up in my new 100k all-electric car. Before driving to my weekend home on the beach, where I'd then get drunk and laid. Not necessarily in that order.
I'm glad they're making the effort to build an all electric car. While I won't personally benefit from their offering directly, I'm also not being forced to buy their products. So, if they actually do help bring EVs to the mainstream, great. If not, then I haven't really lost anything.
Smokers don't just cause savings in health care. American smokers, due to their shorter lives, also receive fewer social security payments. I'd imagine there are similar government savings in other countries, I just don't know the names of programs .. or if those programs correct for such things (doubtful). They probably also create more estate tax revenues, and create them faster, by dying early before they can run through more of their savings. But they don't get credit for all the good deeds they do society by dying sooner.
Pfft.. Bring on your mutant PETA/Greenpeace/Harbor monsters! They'll be made out of mostly glass! And we, in the US at least, know lots about flinging stones at glass. I mean, sure, a lot of that practice is with glass houses. But it seems to be a favored pastime. Annnnd just imagine how much legislation you can cram down everyone's throats as a mutant enviroment/alist monster fearmongerer. After which, you can charge exorbitant amounts to permit the populace to engage in the therapeutic destruction of said monster. It is the perfect guide to a peaceful world without nuclear weapons!
Y'know.. its times like this when I feel I should pat myself on the back and ignore nagging questions such as "what could possibly go wrong?"
Don't see the big deal?! My god, man! Obviously, two bites at the tax revenue apple is far more tasty than merely one. No one cares that the money will be taxed downstream with a probability nearing 1. We want our revenue now. If you want to understand government, think of it as Veruca Salt. Only.. the bugger just won't jump into the incinerator chute.
Right. "Linux" is an operating system to compare against Windows. Except that linux is a kernel. All of the rest of system's goodness bolted on to a kernel makes an operating system and thus the bulk of the user experience. So for linux based OSes there is going to be a wide range of experiences. Lumping all of them into one assertion is ... mind boggling.
If you are speaking from experience, I'm going to say that you don't spend much time on a Windows machine. Because claiming that it is now "as secure" is a ludicrous assertion. Windows has had security models that ranged from non-existent to half assed to annoying as fuck. The success of them has left something to be desired. Windows 7 isn't into production yet, so the greatness or lack thereof is good to know, but largely not a reason for me to care about the OS. When it reaches production and still doesn't suck, assuming this is an outcome that Microsoft can actually make happen, then I'll care. I don't give them credit for any skill, given that they have demonstrated many times that their cures are as bad as the illnesses they propose to treat.
Now, Windows has traditionally been easier to install than linux based OSes. Although that gap has narrowed considerably. Also, this gets somewhat subjective. And, of course, depends highly on the distro. Ubuntu, for instance, is slick. Installs faster than XP or Vista on my machine. Doesn't ask more complicated questions. How, exactly, does this make Windows easier to install?
"Behaves 'smother'", I'll also agree with. Windows is good at smothering users. Smoother, on the other hand, I'm unlikely to agree with. I mean, the first issue is a question of how to quantify "smooth" .. Probably not that easy. I am not saying that the linux OSes of the world are perfect. There is flashy on both sides of the line. There are also issues. On both sides. Sometimes, they're really strange issues. Means there is room for improvement.
If it is an auction, and we assume that the bidders all bid voluntarily, then it doesn't particularly matter what the starting bid is. Unless, of course, no one is willing to pay even the set minimum.
700Mhz spectrum at cheap to nothing rates will only occur when 700Mhz spectrum is worth little to no dollars. Which.. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't.
Uh.. no kidding? Did you think they wanted to give you a quality user experience out of the goodness of their heart? Of course not. They know it is profitable to give users a certain experience. They do it. They make money. There isn't any logical disconnect between (company wants to make money) and (company wants to control the user experience).
If the NSA wanted to control cybersecurity, parading a 100 million USD expenditure over the past 6 months in front of people probably isn't going to do much of.. well.. anything.
How many trillions of dollars of expenditures are in or have been in the news in the past 6 months? 100 million is pocket change. Looks damnably reasonable, in comparison.
That suit doesn't make any sense to me. Although I'll grant you that you're a lot better at crafting a rational translation than I was. If Google referred traffic is such a drain, there is a much cheaper technological solution. Any such referred traffic, regardless of the requested page, gets a page full of nothing but adverts. Yeah, the potential reader is going to be displeased. But they will a) not be consuming your bandwidth (or not much), just your advertiser's and b) won't get the information they were looking for, making the information served by your site that much more valuable. It also decreases the value of Google's indexing. And not one bit of it required going to the ridiculously priced lawyers, or starting a pissing match that isn't likely to turn out beneficial to the company. Sure, it'll hurt your brand. But only with a market segment that wasn't valuable, by your translation. Soooo.. there has to be some other reason. I just can't puzzle out what it might be and still have it make sense.
Ideology is a nice guide for where you'd like to end up. It isn't a terribly good blueprint for getting there, though.
Do tell us where you'll be practicing your particular brand of medicine. I'll be sure to avoid that locale like the plague. Just to avoid you. Makes you kinda special doesn't it?
This is the laptop in question. Under the Special offers and deals section.
Well.. probably on a lot of their pages. But that happened to be the one I looked at.
I thought of a way for developers and publishers to get in on the apparently lucrative used game market.
Operate used game stores. I'm sure there are regional chains all over the country. The publishers could band together to buy and operate these and get their cut.
*chuckle* That card already got played. I have a screenshot of the HP page for a laptop. It has a line that says:
"Upgrade to genuine Windows Vista Ultimate for $99 ($60 value)"
I know what they mean, but I couldn't stop myself from thinking "I can't wait to run out and spend $99 on something I value at $60!"
Right.. if I look at all the benefits of something and almost none of the costs, that something is almost always going to look like a good thing. It isn't a useful method for decision making though.
I can guarantee you that there are people out there who were in poverty and are now wealthier than I'll ever be. There are people out there with good luck just as much as there are people out there with bad. Pointing out the bad without the good is useless. If we took my line, as I said, you'd be making an argument about why universal healthcare does more good than harm. I've only ever seen one that comes close. The others tend to neglect costs of universal health care and overlook benefits of private health care.
They probably can. I doubt they will though. Your car maker gives you options. They're pretty much always overpriced. But it does allow the dealer to extract more money from you for certain aesthetic preferences. What the dealer doesn't do, however, is permit me to select any cd player I want as an option. I don't get options on whether or not it comes with a disposable or washable air filter. That type of option costs a great deal (in inventory) compared to the benefits you receive (revenue).
In the first case, the range of available players is large enough to meet the diverse wants of car owners. But for the dealer, thats an expensive inventory to maintain. He can't reasonably charge more than the A/V shop down the street. And unless he's running his own A/V shop, won't have the volume to make it profitable. In the second case, the preferences probably aren't diverse enough to profit on. Most people probably dont' care about a re-usable air filter, and if they do, can get one after the factory one needs replacing.
ISP-level filter options are going to be similar. What I think should be filtered, what my neighbors next door think should be filtered, and what the neighbors down the street believe should be filtered are probably all different. If the choice is binary, the filtering is definitely wrong for me and probably wrong for the people who want things filtered too.
Basically.. your options on mass marketed products are available because the preferences are few, but wide-spread and valued, enough to make mass production of those options feasible. Content filtering probably doesn't fit that requirement.
if you're able, you could already live under the same conditions as Europeans. Assume the health care costs of someone else. If you aren't willing to assume the entirety of someone's costs, you could still help out. Or give to a charity that provides health care. Give to a clinic. or volunteer at one. Treat it exactly like witholding from your paycheck. I don't know that you don't already do this. If you don't, and are able, I'm not sure I should give your words any weight. If you aren't able, you should make an argument why sacrificing the freedom of others is more beneficial than harmful. I've seen about one good argument for universal health care.